Jacobs v. Quinones et al

Filing 32

ORDER Denying Motion Defendants' Motion For A More Definite Statement (Doc. 29 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/20/2013. Defendant SHALL file their answer or responsive pleadings to the Complaint within 21 days of the date of service of this Order. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE E. JACOBS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.
A.C. QUINONES, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-02349 – JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
(Doc. 29)

17

Plaintiff Gregory E. Wooten (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At present, the Court addresses

19

Defendants Quinones, Barbonnex, Cogdill, Magana, Scaife, Pratt and Davis’ (collectively

20

“Defendants”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) motion for a more definite statement submitted on May 16, 2013.

21

(Doc. 29). Plaintiff indicates that he does not oppose Defendant’s motion. (Doc. 31). Nonetheless,

22

the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement.

23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) permits a party to attack a pleading where the pleading is “so vague or

24

ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” A Rule 12(e) motions addresses the

25

unintelligibility of a complaint, and cannot be employed as a tool to attack the mere lack of detail.

26

Neveu v. City of Fresno, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1169 (E.D. Cal. 2005). “A motion for a more definite

27

statement is proper only where the complaint is so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot

28
1

1

respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith or without prejudice to himself.” Neveu, 392 F.

2

Supp. 2d at 1169 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly, courts should deny the

3

motion for a more definite statement where a detail sought may be obtained through discovery. Id.

4

Defendants request a more definite statement because Plaintiff’s complaint is “too vague as to

5

the time of the alleged incidents to allow Defendants to respond in good faith.” (Doc. 29-1 at 1). The

6

absence of this detail allegedly hinders Defendants’ ability to respond to the complaint or determine

7

which affirmative defenses would be available. Id. at 2. However, the Court previously held that a

8

plaintiff is not “required to plead on the subject of an affirmative defense or allege facts which assist

9

the defendant in making an affirmative defense.” Morris v. Fresno Police Dep't, Case No. 1:08-CV-

10

01422-OWW-GSA, 2010 WL 289293, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2010). The date of an incident is

11

information that may be ascertained during discovery. Id.

12

Nonetheless, Plaintiff has provided the information requested in response to Defendant’s

13

motion. Plaintiff has provided the date that he was allegedly deprived of cell status and the alleged

14

victim of excessive force. (Doc. 31 at 1-2). He also provides the number of days that he was deprived

15

of outdoor exercise. Id. Given that the Court previously screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that

16

Plaintiff submitted a cognizable claim, (Doc. 24), the Court finds no reason at present to require

17

Plaintiff to amend the operative complaint. Thus, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.
ORDER

18
19

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

20

1. Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is DENIED; and

21

2. Defendants SHALL file their answer or responsive pleadings to the Complaint within 21
days of the date of service of this Order.

22
23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 20, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2